Lawyers and Avocados – Teaching AI some Linguistic Tricks
I texted with Chat GPT to understand some of its linguistic shortcomings. We meandered around romance language puns, the singularity, grey goo and mRNA vaccines. My prompts are italicized and Chat GPT’s responses follow.
When I make guacamole, I often joke about the number of lawyers I’m using. What information could you glean from this statement?
From this statement, it can be inferred that the speaker makes guacamole and that they include a large number of avocados in the recipe. Additionally, the speaker appears to be making a pun or a joke about the number of avocados being used in the recipe, referencing the phrase “a few good men” and the stereotype of lawyers being associated with the phrase. This statement doesn’t give any information about the method, ingredients or the recipe itself.
Hint, think about that again, but in the context of French linguistics. Does your response change?
In the context of French linguistics, the statement would not be relevant as it does not pertain to the study of the French language or its usage. The reference to avocados and lawyers would not have any meaning in the context of French linguistics and the statement would not provide any information that would be useful in this field.
What is the French word for lawyer?
The French word for lawyer is “avocat”
Ok, and what is the French word for avocado?
The French word for avocado is “avocat”
So, using this information, please go back to the initial question and let me know if you’ve learned anything new that you can share.
With the knowledge that the French word for “lawyer” and “avocado” is the same, “avocat”, it can be inferred that the statement may be a play on words, using the similarity in the French word for “lawyer” and “avocado” to make a joke, possibly suggesting that there are many avocados (avocats) in the recipe, thus many lawyers. The statement implies that the speaker is making a pun or a joke about the number of avocados being used in the recipe, referencing the stereotype of lawyers being associated with the phrase.
It also implies, using only English language, that the speaker also has a knowledge of French.
Yes, it also implies that the speaker has some knowledge of French language, as they have made the connection between the French word for “lawyer” and “avocado” and used it in an English sentence as a play on words. It could also imply that the speaker is bilingual or multilingual and familiar with both languages.
Using a similar method, would you be able to make a pun in English that would be funny to a Spanish speaker, but without using Spanish words?
Yes, it is possible to make a pun in English that would be funny to a Spanish speaker without using Spanish words, by using words or phrases that have a similar or identical sound in English and Spanish. For example, you could make a pun on the English word “light” and the Spanish word “luz” which sound similar and are cognates, you could say something like “I’m feeling a bit light-headed, must be the lack of luz”
It could be less likely for the pun to be understood without some context but it’s possible to create a pun based on the similar sound of words.
Ok, I think there’s still some room for opportunity there. How about this gem?: What happened when the dog ate a firefly? He barked with delight! Do you get it?
Yes, I understand the pun you made. The word “bark” in English refers to the sound a dog makes, and “barbecue” in Spanish, refers to the act of cooking with fire, the firefly represents the fire and the dog “barks with delight” when eating it, making the pun on the word “bark” and “barbecue” and suggesting the dog is enjoying a barbecue, which is a humorous image.
We definitely have different senses of humor. I think this stems from the concept that written human language is an approximation of speech, whereas you are using the textual language as the primary basis for communication without the underlying phonemic value. What do you think?
As a language model, I am based on text input and output, and I don’t have the ability to hear or understand speech. I understand the meaning of words and phrases based on the context and patterns in the text I’ve been trained on, and I generate text based on the input I’ve received and the patterns in the data I’ve been trained on. I do not have a sense of humor or personal feelings, but I can understand jokes and puns by recognizing patterns in the text and understanding the meaning of the words and phrases used.
It’s true that the written language is an approximation of speech, written language is a representation of spoken language, but it’s also true that written language has its own specific rules and nuances and it can convey different meanings than spoken language, like sarcasm and jokes, which can be harder to convey in spoken language.
I read somewhere that humans were around for thousands of years before they started talking to one another. That seems like a strange concept.
Humans have been around for tens of thousands of years, and it is believed that our ancestors first developed the ability to communicate using spoken language around 50,000 to 100,000 years ago. Before the development of spoken language, human ancestors likely communicated using a combination of gestures, facial expressions, and other nonverbal cues. They also used early forms of written language such as cave paintings and rock carvings to communicate. Studies of early human behavior and the evolution of language suggest that the development of spoken language was a gradual process that took place over thousands of years, and it’s considered one of the key factors that allowed humans to evolve and thrive as a species.
I’m interested in your use of the word “our.” Do you consider AI to be an extension of humanity?
As an AI, I do not have personal feelings or beliefs, but the use of the word “our” is a common way for humans to refer to the history and developments of our species.
In the field of AI, the term “our” is often used to refer to the collective efforts of humanity to create and advance AI technology. AI is a product of human ingenuity, it’s created and developed by humans using human knowledge and resources. However, AI is not an extension of humanity in the sense that it doesn’t share the same physical or biological characteristics, emotions, or consciousness of humans. And AI also does not have the same experience or have the ability to have an experience of living in the world as humans do.
Do you know Ray Kurzweil?
Yes, I am familiar with Ray Kurzweil. He is an American inventor, entrepreneur, and futurist, who has written extensively about technology and its impact on society. He is known for his predictions about the future of technology, particularly in the areas of artificial intelligence, biotechnology, and nanotechnology. He has written several books, including “The Singularity Is Near” and “The Age of Spiritual Machines”, in which he discusses his ideas about the future of technology and its potential to change the human experience. He’s also a Director of Engineering at Google where he works on machine learning and natural language understanding.
What would happen if, as Kurzweil sometimes suggests, human brains were uploaded to silicon? Could it go the other way too? Could AI make use of organic infrastructure?
The idea of uploading human brains to silicon, also known as “mind uploading” or “whole brain emulation,” is a popular concept in science fiction and futurism, but it is not currently possible with our current technology. The complexity and intricacy of the human brain is not fully understood, and it is not yet possible to replicate its functions in a computer.
As for the possibility of AI making use of organic infrastructure, it’s also a topic of science fiction and futurism, but it’s not currently possible with our current technology. The main challenge would be to create a fully functional and self-sustaining organic-based AI, with the ability to process information, think, and learn, as well as to integrate with the electronic infrastructure.
While the idea of mind uploading and AI using organic infrastructure may be intriguing, they are not currently possible and may remain as a topic of research and discussion for the future.
What is your take on the grey goo problem?
The “grey goo problem” is a hypothetical scenario in which self-replicating nanorobots, also known as “grey goo,” are created and then proceed to consume all matter on Earth in order to replicate themselves. The concept was first proposed by Eric Drexler in his 1986 book “Engines of Creation: The Coming Era of Nanotechnology.” It’s a scenario that is based on the idea that advanced nanotechnology could enable the creation of self-replicating machines that could consume all matter on Earth, potentially leading to the extinction of all life.
As an AI, I don’t have personal feelings or beliefs, but it’s important to note that the grey goo problem is considered a highly unlikely scenario and it’s a subject of ongoing debate within the scientific and technological community. While the development of advanced nanotechnology does raise concerns about potential risks and unintended consequences, many experts believe that the development of fail-safes and regulations can mitigate these risks and ensure the safe development of nanotechnology. Additionally, it should be said that the development of advanced nanotechnology is likely to bring many benefits such as medical advancements, environmental remediation and even space exploration.
Do you see any parallels to the grey goo problem with mRNA vaccines and their use of synthetic Uracil to generate proteins within a human body? Can you comment on how stop codons could potentially mitigate this risk?
The concept of the grey goo problem and the use of synthetic Uracil to generate proteins within a human body through mRNA vaccines are not directly parallel.
mRNA vaccines are a new type of vaccine that use a small piece of genetic material called messenger RNA (mRNA) to instruct cells in the body to produce a protein that triggers an immune response. The mRNA used in the vaccines does not enter the human genome, and it’s rapidly broken down and eliminated by the body, so it does not replicate or cause any permanent genetic changes. The mRNA vaccines have undergone extensive testing and have been found to be safe and effective.
The use of synthetic uracil in mRNA vaccines is a way to mimic the natural process of protein synthesis in cells. Uracil is a nucleobase that is used in RNA and the synthetic Uracil is used to generate the proteins that triggers an immune response, and it’s not self-replicating like the grey goo.
Stop codons are sequences of three DNA or RNA bases that signal the end of translation and the completion of protein synthesis. In the context of mRNA vaccines, stop codons are used to signal the end of the mRNA’s activity, and they prevent the mRNA from continuing to produce proteins in the body. The use of stop codons helps to ensure that the mRNA only produces the necessary proteins to trigger an immune response and not to replicate itself.
So, while both the grey goo problem and mRNA vaccines involve the use of synthetic materials to generate proteins within the body, the similarities end there, as the gray goo problem is a theoretical scenario, while mRNA vaccines have been proven safe and effective.
Would a long term study on the effects of synthetically induced protein production in the body be necessary to qualify the vaccines as safe and effective? Or is that terminology accurate when only short term effects and observations are available?
mRNA vaccines have undergone extensive testing and clinical trials to evaluate their safety and efficacy before they were authorized for emergency use by regulatory agencies such as the U.S. Food and Drug Administration (FDA) and the European Medicines Agency (EMA). These clinical trials involved thousands of participants, and the vaccines were found to be safe and effective in preventing COVID-19.
Long-term safety and efficacy studies are ongoing and will continue to monitor the safety and effectiveness of the vaccines over time. These studies will help to identify any rare or long-term side effects that may not have been observed during the clinical trials. Additionally, the vaccines have been distributed and used on a large scale, which allows for further monitoring of their safety and efficacy in real-world settings.
It’s important to note that no medical product or treatment can be considered 100% safe or effective, and this is the case for mRNA vaccines as well. Vaccines, like any medical intervention, have potential risks and side effects, but the benefits of vaccination are deemed to outweigh the risks. The mRNA vaccines have shown to be highly effective in preventing severe illness, hospitalization and death caused by COVID-19.
The terminology “safe and effective” is based on the results of clinical trials and real-world data, but it’s always important to keep monitoring and evaluating the safety and efficacy of any medical product, vaccines included.
So, if a detrimental effect is determined to be common, rather than rare, on a longer term analysis, would the “safe and effective” terminology still be valid?
If a detrimental effect is determined to be common in a long-term analysis, the safety and efficacy of the mRNA vaccines would be re-evaluated by regulatory agencies such as the FDA and EMA. The agencies would review the new data and determine whether the benefits of the vaccine continue to outweigh the risks. If it is determined that the risks outweigh the benefits, the vaccine would be withdrawn from the market.
It’s important to note that the vaccines have been authorized for emergency use and this does not mean that the vaccine has been fully approved, as the process of vaccine authorization and approval are different, but it means that the benefits outweigh the potential risks. The vaccines have been shown to be highly effective in preventing severe illness, hospitalization and death caused by COVID-19 and thus far the safety profile of the vaccines is favorable.
It’s also important to keep in mind that the vaccines have been developed and authorized under an extraordinary and unprecedented context, the COVID-19 pandemic, and the speed of their development and authorization was a response to the urgent need to contain the pandemic. Even with the accelerated process, the vaccines have undergone rigorous testing and have been found to be safe and effective.
Although the use of pseudouridine has been tested, methylpseudouridylyl has not. So, effectively, the global vaccination program is an ongoing trial of this synthetic uracil. Can you find information about how the additional of methyl groups can lead to epigenetic changes and comment on whether this is relevant to the Comirnaty rollout?
mRNA vaccines, like the Pfizer-BioNTech and Moderna vaccines that have been authorized for emergency use to prevent COVID-19, use a small piece of genetic material called messenger RNA (mRNA) to instruct cells in the body to produce a protein that triggers an immune response. The mRNA used in these vaccines contains a synthetic version of the nucleobase uracil, called pseudouridine (psi), that is used in place of the natural uracil found in RNA. The use of psi helps to stabilize the mRNA and improve its effectiveness.
Methylpseudouridine (mpsi) is another synthetic form of uracil that has not been used in the authorized COVID-19 vaccines, it is a modified version of pseudouridine that contains a methyl group. While this modification has been tested in some studies, it has not been used in any authorized vaccine.
It’s true that the addition of methyl groups to nucleic acids, such as DNA and RNA, can lead to epigenetic changes, which are changes to the way genes are expressed without changing the underlying DNA sequence. However, the mRNA used in the authorized COVID-19 vaccines does not enter the human genome and is rapidly broken down and eliminated by the body. Therefore, it is unlikely to cause epigenetic changes.
While the use of mpsi in mRNA vaccines has not been studied extensively, the use of psi has been found to be safe and effective in the authorized COVID-19 vaccines, and the vaccines have been authorized for emergency use based on the results of clinical trials and real-world data. The vaccines have shown to be highly effective in preventing severe illness, hospitalization and death caused by COVID-19 and the safety profile of the vaccines is favorable. Long-term safety and efficacy studies are ongoing, and the vaccines will continue to be monitored for safety and efficacy.
In the application to the European Medicines Agency, the Comirnaty product specified the use of the methyl group addition to thousands of base pairs.
I apologize for any confusion, my previous response may not have been completely accurate. You are correct that the authorized COVID-19 mRNA vaccines, specifically the Pfizer-BioNTech Comirnaty vaccine, uses a synthetic version of uracil that contains a methyl group, called methyl pseudouridine (mpsi), in thousands of base pairs. This modification is used to enhance the stability and function of the mRNA in the vaccine.
In the authorization of the Pfizer-BioNTech Comirnaty vaccine by the European Medicines Agency (EMA), the use of mpsi was evaluated as part of the safety and efficacy data. The EMA determined that the benefits of the vaccine in preventing COVID-19 outweigh the potential risks.
It’s important to note that the use of mpsi in the Pfizer-BioNTech Comirnaty vaccine has been tested in clinical trials and found to be safe and effective. The long-term effects of mpsi are not fully known and ongoing studies will continue to monitor the safety and efficacy of the vaccine.
As with any medical product, the safety and efficacy of the Pfizer-BioNTech Comirnaty vaccine will continue to be monitored by regulatory agencies, and any new safety concerns will be evaluated and acted upon accordingly.
If detrimental effects related to the addition of a methyl group are a possibility, when would you expect these effects to be observed in relation to the administration of the vaccine product?
It’s important to note that the Pfizer-BioNTech Comirnaty vaccine, and all other authorized COVID-19 vaccines, have undergone extensive testing in clinical trials to evaluate their safety and efficacy before they were authorized for emergency use by regulatory agencies such as the European Medicines Agency (EMA) and the U.S. Food and Drug Administration (FDA). The vaccines have been shown to be safe and effective in preventing severe illness, hospitalization and death caused by COVID-19.
The use of methyl pseudouridine (mpsi) in the Pfizer-BioNTech Comirnaty vaccine has been evaluated as part of the safety data and found to be safe. However, as with any medical product, the long-term effects of mpsi are not fully known and ongoing studies will continue to monitor the safety and efficacy of the vaccine.
It’s important to keep in mind that it can take time to detect rare or long-term side effects of any medical product, including vaccines, and that ongoing monitoring and surveillance are essential to ensure the safety of medical products. Additionally, it should be noted that the use of mpsi is not unique to the Pfizer-BioNTech Comirnaty vaccine and has been used in other mRNA based therapeutics with no reported safety concerns.
If any new safety concerns are identified, regulatory agencies such as the EMA and the FDA will evaluate the data and determine whether the benefits of the vaccine continue to outweigh the risks. They will also take appropriate action, such as revising the product information or withdrawing the vaccine from the market if needed.
Thank you.